CANADA’S PROSTHETIC COVERAGE: A REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL PROSTHETIC POLICY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian healthcare system serves as an example of equity and federal service to citizens across the world. However, it is not without its challenges. Prosthetic coverage across Canada is highly variable and largely unable to provide equal coverage for Canadian persons living with amputation. Many persons with limb loss are forced to rely upon personal resources, fundraising, or the charity of non-governmental organizations in order to meet this basic healthcare need. This disparity in the Canadian healthcare system is unusual and largely undescribed in the literature. We thus explore the nature of Canadian healthcare prosthetic coverage across Canada, investigating the variability in coverage, presence of prosthetic coverage policies, clarity of policy, eligibility criteria, and interval of prosthetic replacement. Our findings highlight potential areas for improvement within current Canadian healthcare policy. Article PDF Link: How to Cite: Howard C.W, Saraswat D.K, McLeod G, Yeung A, Jeong D, Lam J. Canada’s prosthetic coverage: a review of provincial prosthetic policy. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2019;Volume2, Issue2, No.4. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v2i2.33489 CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:Calvin W. Howard, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Phone: +1 (587) 987-7723E-mail: calvin.howard@ucalgary.caORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5576-9608
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".